Are people just noticing this? This info was included in my cancellation documentation. In short every plan has to pay a fee per subscriber every month to pay for the exchange. I think it was ~$15 a month or ~180 a year. 6 million plans an you're approaching a billion a year to pay for the 'exchange'. I'm not 100% sure if this applies only to plans bought through the exchange. But you can't get a tax subsidy if you don't buy through the exchange.....

__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t*rd by the clean end"

Are people just noticing this? This info was included in my cancellation documentation. In short every plan has to pay a fee per subscriber every month to pay for the exchange. I think it was ~$15 a month or ~180 a year. 6 million plans an you're approaching a billion a year to pay for the 'exchange'. I'm not 100% sure if this applies only to plans bought through the exchange. But you can't get a tax subsidy if you don't buy through the exchange.....

So if your policy stayed exactly the same you get a nearly 10% surcharge just cuz?

__________________
Frazod to KC Nitwit..."Hey, I saw a picture of some dumpy bitch with a horrible ****tarded giant back tattoo and couldn't help but think of you." Simple, Pure, Perfect. 7/31/2013

Dave Lane: "I have donated more money to people in my life as an atheist that most churches ever will."

Are people just noticing this? This info was included in my cancellation documentation. In short every plan has to pay a fee per subscriber every month to pay for the exchange. I think it was ~$15 a month or ~180 a year. 6 million plans an you're approaching a billion a year to pay for the 'exchange'. I'm not 100% sure if this applies only to plans bought through the exchange. But you can't get a tax subsidy if you don't buy through the exchange.....

Well, why can't this be challenged in the Supreme Court on this aspect, since a tax must originate in the House of Reps--not the Senate?

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

As for Obamacare, it kinda sorta originated in the House as a shell bill but it's a silly argument because it's not like it wouldn't have passed through the House at the time anyway. It's an argument using a technicality to argue against another technicality... not the most "honest" of complaints.

For those who want the Supreme Court to rule on Obamacare... the only thing I see in the near future is the Hobby Lobby case which will (most likely) be taken up on Tuesday. As it stands, the 10th Circuit has ruled that Obamacare can NOT force employers to cover birth control.

"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

As for Obamacare, it kinda sorta originated in the House as a shell bill but it's a silly argument because it's not like it wouldn't have passed through the House at the time anyway. It's an argument using a technicality to argue against another technicality... not the most "honest" of complaints.

The people who interpret such things (the Supreme Court) has ruled that "Bills for raising revenue" means that raising revenue must be the primary purpose of the bill. Obviously, there is a reason why the issue wasn't raised in the ACA challenge before the SC.

The technicality on origination of a bill heavily amended by the Senate has also been blessed by the SC. And again, not even raised in the ACA SC case.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by petegz28

Did planes hit the 2 WTC towers? Yes. Ah but were they the airliners we were told they were? Evidence and physics seems to say NO!

The technicality on origination of a bill heavily amended by the Senate has also been blessed by the SC. And again, not even raised in the ACA SC case.

Yes I know, shell bills happen all the time which is why I think the "origination" argument against Obamacare is silly. You are using a technicality to argue against a technicality. Seems disingenuous. I might feel differently IF there was a chance that the House at the time wouldn't have passed whatever the Senate wanted them to... but that wasn't the case.

I'm a rabid Obamacare hater but come on guys, pick your battles. I also can't stand Obama himself but I was a full on debunker of the birth certificate nonsense. My "partisanship" is always gonna to be subservient to facts and logic.